Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

Hey folks. Mike is at Innovate/Activate this weekend, so I'm bringing you the roundup of funniest and most insightful comments. No record-busters this week, but lots of high scores nevertheless.

The insight trophy goes to RD for a challenge to copyright maximalists that has so far gone unanswered. When we posted the news that the son of Interscope Records boss Jimmy Iovine had his SoundCloud account shut down for copyright infringement (and quickly reinstated), RD asked someone to please explain the injustice:

So can one of the oh-so-smarter-than-us rah-rah-copyright shills who regularly post here tell us why THIS kid was allowed to "correct" the problem and simply remove the offending material, and allow his site to continue, when EVERYONE ELSE who is not the son of a Big Media Exec gets the JusticeHammer(tm) right up the ass, has their site seized and domain (if applicible) permanently removed, and is sued/incarcerated/fined into oblivion?

Here is your chance to put us all in our place once and for all. We are waiting.

That comment spurred me to look up what usually happens in SoundCloud disputes, and apparently SoundCloud claims they have no control over the takedown system. I guess that means the labels are in charge—so maybe that's why Mr. Iovine was seemingly able to expedite the process.

The runner up for Most Insightful was Mesonoxian Eve on our post about Hollywood's ongoing efforts to kill Netflix, noting that a lack of legitimate sources doesn't drive everyone to piracy—sometimes it just drives them away:

I just recently canceled my Netflix subscription because of the fact it doesn't seem to be nothing more than a Hulu clone anymore. I signed up for the streaming service, but it's nothing but television shows, not movies.

But I'd like to point out something: "All this does is drive more people to piracy..."
This isn't true for me. Unlike most, I don't need Hollywood. It needs me. I've done without and it's their fault.

If Hollywood wants my money, they sure have a screwed up way of trying to get it. It truly is a shame they expect me to buy plastic disks, and in the internet age, is something I'm not doing ever again.

I'm sick of storing this crap. Sick of buying a title only to watch it a few times and then never watch it again.

Entertainment is disposable, just as the income is to view it.

It's a shame this is a multi-billion dollar industry, because it's that greed of keeping it this way that's making it difficult for everyone, especially those "2 million" who rely on my money to make their salary.

It's just a shame it's the other way around to the point Hollywood knows people need it more, because it's true. People whine and complain but they still don't go without, never realizing if they took a different action, they'd win the war.

For Editor's Choice, first we've got one Anonymous Coward responding to another on our post about copyright maximalists regrouping and strategizing. The first AC sought a definition of just what makes a "copyright maximalist", and the second offered up an answer:

A copyright maximalist is a person who believes that copyright law should only be modified in one direction -- more to the benefit of copyright interests.

Or, in another way, that the best "compromise" in copyright law is the one that extends the maximum benefit to copyright interests, even to the detriment of all other interests or positions.

In my own opinion, I see a copyright maximalist as a person who threatens to poison the town's well if they won't allow him to charge people for the water within.

Next, we've got another Anonymous Coward on the same post, responding to one of our regular critics who referred to "grey area behavior like sharing newspapers or libraries"—a statement this commenter found ridiculous:

The day libraries are considered "grey areas" is the beginning of the end of civilization.

Boy are you going to look stupid when their millions of blog readers, Twitter followers, and Facebook likers stand up and say, "We want - NAY, DEMAND - the content we consume be more expensive, less convenient, and of lower quality!"

1. $0 - Paid to any of the MPAA members
2. $0 - Paid to copyright lawyers for protecting trademark/copyright
3. $0 - Paid to any company to trace and track unauthorized distribution
4. $0 - Paid to any Legal representation for shaking down and prosecuting fans for sharing
5. $0 - Paid for lobbying effort to protect the copyright industry

See, every one of the paths to monetizing content was ignored. Basically, this freeloading SOB just bent the whole world over so that he could just steal other peoples money.

I hope he's really, really proud of himself.

I know right? It's almost as if he thinks his first duty is to his fans, or something.

For Editor's Choice, first we've got another comment on the same post, this time from dwg. It could have just as easily been on the insightful side (and it did well in both categories), but since funny votes were in the lead I'll put it here:

Here's the real problem:

Louis C.K. is actually talented and funny. So the model he employs can't really be applied to "Transformers VI."

That's the thing about substance-free big budget movies. If you build them, they will come—but if you don't, people will find something a lot better. Next, we've got an Anonymous Coward responding to our post about how so-called "cybercrime" losses are massively exaggerated. This particular AC has some anecdotal evidence to the contrary:

I personally lost $150 billion in sales due to cybercrime. You see, this prince in Nigeria promised me $150 billion dollars if he helped me move $1.5 trillion dollars out of Nigeria. But it was all a scam. It was...cybercrime. So there's proof that our economy lost $150 billion due to cybercrime. And since I was planning on giving it all to orphans, it's hurting children directly.

Hmm... well, perhaps we were wrong. Anyway, that's all for this week—it turns out writing these posts is pretty easy as long as you guys submit a bunch of fantastic comments, so keep it up!

Re: Re: Re:

If we all chipped in, would you be willing to seek help to get over your infatuation with Marcus?

I'm asking in all seriousness. That or if we get him to go out with you (and he shoots you down after meeting you and your oh so charming personality) would you get lost at that point, having reached your obviously hidden goal?

If only Freud were still around. I'm sure you'd be like a dream come true/once in a lifetime opportunity for him to analyze.

Re:

Re:

A maximalist is either someone who is obsessed with the Mad Max movies, or someone who worships the big maroon robot from "The Black Hole", depending on who you ask. If it is the latter, may all you maximalists end up in hell with your master.

Re: Re:

A maximalist is either someone who is obsessed with the Mad Max movies, or someone who worships the big maroon robot from "The Black Hole", depending on who you ask.

NNNNNOOOOOOO!!!!!

I cannot be a maximalist. I cannot. Yet I love Mad Max (well, maybe not Thunderdome,) and Maximilian was an awesome robot (though I cannot say that I worshiped it.) Was more a fan of V.I.N.C.E.N.T., but what self-respecting nerd didn't want Maximilian to be their friend in junior high?

According to you, I guess I am now the largest shill for the MAFIAA. Oh well, needed the extra money anyway. Who do I need to contact to start collecting my shill wages?

Re: Re: Re:

Didn't Maximillian end up in the Black Hole, not "hell"?

He ended up in the Black Hole, but I think the movie somehow equated the Black Hole with Hell. When you saw the final inside the singularity shot in the movie, it was all fire and brimstone, with Dr. Reinheardt inside Maximilian floating above lava. Also, if I remember correctly, the movie was not at all scientifically accurate.

Re: Re:

It's been quite the week for insightful, funny, slapstick and ironic humour to surface. Largely because it's been a week that never seemed to offer up topics that demanded one or more or all of the above.

While a number of our better known trolls have been active the number of trolling posts feels like it declined during the week or maybe they're just not as insulting, ignorant and self-centred as usual.

The prize and an extreme example of all three cam be found in tp's posts in Too Much Copyright headed "It's limiting both sides..." in which, among other things is positied the idea that there's some kind of mathematical relationship between how much time is spent on a creation in work time and free time and too much done in free time is grounds for rejection by a publisher. tp also explains to those of us too dense to get it ourselves that there's this vast conspiracy amongst publishers to to avoid the dangers of "impact" in what he seems to feel is a closed system with door locks instead of the open system that it is and that, within, this closed system there's room for only so much product at any given moment in time and so there are only "jobs" for a fixed number of authors and "product"--books--.

That this is disproved by the number of new authors who are published all the time in book form doesn't seem to have occurred to him.

The thread is often unintentionally humourous, funny to the point where ROFLOL is an apt description, language that is easily found in conspiracy theory forums and posts, totally out of touch with reality.

But tp must know something the rest of us don't because he seems able to suggest this closed system and market when most economists from Adam Smith to the present consider it an open one and that stock and futures markets are sure is an open economic system.

By reading him you're left with the impression that he believes all of this. To critics with concrete examples just how wrong he is his response is to show how wrong the critic is by standing his ground and patiently explaining just how and why he's right. A great reminder of the reality that even the most educated and talented among us can fall into becoming a conspiracy nut with a flat earther certainty that he's the only one who knows The Truth.

Re:

You obviously missed the implicit humor they said that with. OH NOES! THE AC GETS IT MISINTERPRETS AND GETS IT WRONG LIKE HE ALWAYS DOES! OH NOES! THIS JUST IN! AC LOOKS FOOLISH! YET AGAIN! More on this story at 11.

In fact, by saying it rather humorously, it might make one be tempted to download their song. Then, assuming it's good or to their liking, they'll say, "Hmm. This band's not bad, let me go see them in concert, buy some merch directly from them, and perhaps even purchase their music directly from them (if possible, so we can cut out any proceeds going to the middlemen)."

You trolls/shills are getting really bad/pathetic. Why not just make an account? Seriously. Call yourself Shill #1, Troll #2, Copyright Maximalist #3, etc. I mean geez, you might as well. Everyone knows who you generally are anyway.

Re: Re:

Wouldn't the real "dumbshit of the year" award go to the guy who purposefully trolls? I'd think that'd be how it worked. As opposed to people pointing out the stupidity, incorrectness, etc of said troll.

It's more amusing watching trolls come to this site, which sucks and is led by a thieving pirate apologist and his lackey Marcus (according to them), on a daily basis. Then it gets even more hilarious when they make wild claims about Google conspiracies, disinformation or discrediting done on the part of Mike and Google and everyone else (while ignoring the blatant hypocrisy in bitching about Mike/Google/etc while overlooking the labels and studios doings of the same thing), all while trying to come off as reasonable and wanting to have rational discussions (til someone calls them out or starts in with facts and evidence, then it's strawmen, bad analogies, and ad homs time) and so on and so forth.

These are the real dumbasses, the guys who come here to do that. Which, according to your own self, you are. As you're just here to troll. Dumbass of the year, us? Hardly. Dumbass Reigning Champion For Life, you? Most definitely. That's a throne/award no one could possibly ever take from you.

Re: Re:

It probably doesn't support your cause to call anyone who disagrees with anything you've said a troll.
Can you handle a two way debate, or is it really just your way or the highway?
Your highway doesn't go to freedom and democracy land, or you wouldn't have to hit and run so many 'shills' and 'trolls' on route.

Re: Re: Re:

The RIAA chose to be the representative voice of all artists, including those not under its wings, when it chose to criminalise alleged downloaders and sue them for money they didn't have, for downloads they did not do. What, I'm not allowed to debate the RIAA at their own level?

Re: Comment Formatting Wish

No Options

I live in a rural town outside the USA. We have no theater, no video store, (it recently closed) no access to Netfix or such due to restrictive copyright laws which in this case solely exist to protect local distributors, usually subsidiaries of the major's.
So how can my downloading a movie that I have no other way of seeing, apart from traveling 100km, be considered illegal.
My challenge is if they want to play the copyright game make every movie locally available to me on the release dates.

No Options

I live in a rural town outside the USA. We have no theater, no video store, (it recently closed) no access to Netfix or such due to restrictive copyright laws which in this case solely exist to protect local distributors, usually subsidiaries of the major's.
So how can my downloading a movie that I have no other way of seeing, apart from traveling 100km, be considered illegal.
My challenge is if they want to play the copyright game make every movie locally available to me on the release dates.